Naïve, unenculturated chimpanzees fail to make and use flaked stone tools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background</ns4:bold> : Despite substantial research on early hominin lithic technologies, the learning mechanisms underlying flake manufacture and use are contested. To draw phylogenetic inferences on the potential cognitive processes underlying the acquisition of both of these abilities in early hominins, we investigated if and how one of our closest living relatives, chimpanzees ( <ns4:italic>Pan troglodytes</ns4:italic> ), could learn to make and use flakes. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods</ns4:bold> : Across several experimental conditions, we tested unenculturated, naïve chimpanzees from two independent populations (n=11) for their abilities to spontaneously make and use their own flakes as well as to use pre-made flakes made by a human experimenter. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results</ns4:bold> : Despite the fact that the chimpanzees demonstrated an understanding of the requirements of the task and that subjects were sufficiently motivated and had ample opportunities to develop these behaviours, none of the chimpanzees tested, made or used flakes in any of the experimental conditions. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions</ns4:bold> : These results differ from all previous ape flaking experiments, which found flake manufacture and use in bonobos and one orangutan. However, these earlier studies tested human-enculturated apes and provided the test subjects with flake making and using demonstrations. The contrast between these earlier positive findings and our negative findings (despite using a much larger sample size) suggests that human enculturation and/or human demonstrations may be necessary for chimpanzees to acquire these abilities. The data obtained in this study are consistent with the hypothesis that flake manufacture and use might have evolved in the hominin lineage after the split between <ns4:italic>Homo</ns4:italic> and <ns4:italic>Pan</ns4:italic> 7 million years ago, a scenario further supported by the initial lack of flaked stone tools in the archaeological record after this split. We discuss possible evolutionary scenarios for flake manufacture and use in both non-hominin and hominin lineages. </ns4:p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it